Universal Healthcare - Conservative Style? Vouchers?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by GHook93, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    Anyone who wants to argue that healthcare is like any other product or service is fooling themselves. It's much different. First, it's a service based on need not want. Second, when in need you usually can't say no and it becomes very expensive even if you have insurance. Third, even if you have insurance maintaining the payment when you become sick is extremely hard. Even maintaining an income becomes very hard. It's as unique of a service as they come.

    Obamanationcare isn't the answer. Most people without insurance are going to ignore the mandate (granted it's constitutional) and not get insurance. Even if everyone did, it's already been proven those payment will not offset the added costs to the insurance companies. There will be many small businesses effected by this (not as many as stated) which will hurt the economy. But the biggest impact will be to everyone. Everyone will have higher premium and deductibles, businesses will pay a ton more and the individual or self-employed person's insurance cost will be unaffordable. It's simply not the answer.

    However, status quo is NOT the answer also. Pre-existing conditions make no insurance available. Employer based system removes choice and puts our corps at a disadvantage globally. It's a wasteful system. Medical Bills are still the leading cause of BK. The most vulnerable in society (our children) are at the mercy of others to get insurance! Status Quo isn't the option either. We have rationing already, use an HMO or look at the 20% co-payment and you will be dishonest to say we don't already have healthcare rationing!

    Libs say single payor is the only way. I came across this article and I believe this author has the way.

    Basically its a Universal Healthcare Plan. It calls for the government to give a voucher for every US citizen to buy general private insurance, with a deductible of $1000 per person. Yet you can buy down the deductible and/or get addition coverage for a fee. It's not a single payor, since government doesn't run the plan it just pays for basic coverage. Illegals and criminals won't get free healthcare, because you still have to sign up with an insurance co. There is still skin in the game with the deductible (which I believe the deductible gets waived for low income) and additional coverage can be purchased. It also move away from the inflexible to the consumer's needs of the employer based system. If would give our corps an advantage in the global market by reducing a huge cost to them.

    I like it! What do you say!

     
  2. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,263
    Thanks Received:
    1,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,076
    If that's the standard for government control, then we'll have to look to our central planners to provide, or fund through taxpayer theft, food, water, clothing, and shelter. After all, we NEED these things.

    Since we don't need an education, can I assume all the tax money spent on public schools will be re-directed towards your plan for universal healthcare as described in that article?
     
  3. Ariux
    Offline

    Ariux BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,727
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +184
    Healthcare isn't optional, unlike other things? Shithead, why don't you find a doctor that can give you a brain. Isn't food needed? Isn't clothing needed? Isn't a roof needed? Is electrical service and a phone really optional? Maybe a car is optional, if you live on a buss rout.

    Medical care is mostly optional and even when it's not an option, it's only so expensive because of government intrusion. Even as it is, 95% of the population would save money by not having medical insurance. If you get a hundred thousand dollar heart job, because you were a fat slob, a bank loan to pay the bill wouldn't cost as much as insurance.

    Wrong, shithead. Pre-existing conditions don't apply with group insurance. Pre-existing conditions only count when they're already diagnosed. "At worst", pre-existing conditions are covered, just after a short period of exclusion. And, if you're poor, you get free medical care regardless of pre-existing conditions.

    Shithead, is there not one working brain cell in your skull? You want the government to flood the insurance market with billions of government dollars and you don't think the insurance companies will simply jack up their rates (and profits) to absorb the extra cash? Oh wait, you're already having the government writing the insurance contracts "$1000 deductible..." Sorry, shithead, the insurance companies will just find another way to absorb the extra cash.

    Wrong, shithead, with the government buying "basic coverage" with a "thousand dollar deductible" for everyone, it is a single player system... just one with a bunch of useless profiteers (the insurance companies) in the middle.

    Socialism: Government -> medical care.
    Shitheadism: Government -> insurance companies -> medical care.

    Vouchers are a good idea for something like public education because the vouchers go to the school to pay the school, not to a third-party profiteer in the middle. And, because the cost of education is fairly consistent and controllable, it's trivial for the government to insist that a school doesn't charge tuition above the voucher.

    The solution to our medical problem is for the government to deregulate medical care and insurance companies, and to cap liability. In short, shithead, the government is the problem, not the solution.
     
  4. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    You talking little guy?

     
  5. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    I love the extremist. If this happens then why not everything. If one can't see that healthcare is (1) Unique, (2) A Unsolved Pressing US problem and (3) Needs some drastic change then I feel for you.
     
  6. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,263
    Thanks Received:
    1,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,076
    Because that's the way central planners work. Drip by drip, they enact more socialist programs, growing government more and more each year. They'll say if healthcare is a "need" and we provide it, then we MUST provide for other "needs". Of course, they want to manage/provide/oversee all kinds of programs that do not represent need, but again, that's the way central planners think...everything THEY run will be great. It's only the other central planners that don't have the right magic beans.

    I'll take free markets, competition and choice every time over either side's planners. So, in summary, I am not impressed with your suggested version of socialized healthcare.
     
  7. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    It offers free market, compeition and choice! Are you against medicare also? What about social security are you against any form of SS also?

    If you are going to hate on extremist on the left who want government in everything, then you have to hate on extremist on the right who want government in nothing!
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2012
  8. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    This is just a variant of the dreaded "Obamacare," except it's actually less "conservative" (if that word still has meaning). Under Obamacare, insurers do have to offer a basic set of health benefits and the feds do offer financial assistance to cover the cost of those benefits. The difference is that the value of that financial assistance is determined by market forces (not set at a fixed value, apparently administratively, as in the proposal you're describing), instead of simply requiring insurers to offer those basic benefits at a price dictated by the government.

    Of course, if you're going to rely on market forces to determine the level of the financial assistance, you need to address the features of the market that make it anti-competitive (e.g. it being fragmented, opaque, confusing, and otherwise limited). Which the ACA does by doing things like leveling the playing field to make consumer choice more meaningful and facilitating the introduction of new, competing plans into insurance markets.
     
  9. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,138
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,785
    Sounds like "plan B" in the insurance industry's ongoing campaign to tap government for guaranteed income.
     
  10. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Excellent points.
     

Share This Page